DOJ SECURES AGREEMENT TO RESOLVE IMMIGRATION-RELATED DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS FROM EMPLOYEES
The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) responded to multiple claims of immigration-related claims. The DOJ and the Department of Labor (DOL) recently came to an agreement with Arthur Grand Technologies Inc, an information technologies service firm based in Virginia, to resolve a discriminatory “Whites Only” job posting. The Justice Department’s agreement resolves the department’s determination that Arthur Grand violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by posting a discriminatory job advertisement in March 2023 that restricted eligible candidates to “only US Born Citizens [white] who are local within 60 miles from Dallas, TX [Don’t share with candidates].” The position, the announcement stated, would serve two clients, HTC Global an information technology company based in Troy, Michigan, and Berkshire Hathaway, the multinational holding company based in Omaha, Nebraska.
As part of the Justice Department settlement, Arthur Grand will pay a civil penalty to the United States, compensation to individuals who filed complaints with its Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). In addition, the agreement also requires Arthur Grand to train its personnel on the INA’s requirements, revise its employment policies and be subject to departmental monitoring.
The DOJ settled another immigration-based discrimination case with Maxim Healthcare Services, a home healthcare company based in Columbia, Maryland, with operations in 35 states. DOJ determined that Maxim violated the INA at its Gardena, California, office by discriminating against a non-U.S. citizen worker when it rejected her valid document showing her permission to work and requiring lawful permanent residents working for the company to prove their continued permission to work even though it was unnecessary.
Under the terms of the settlement, Maxim will pay a civil penalty to the United States and lost wages to the affected worker, train its employees on the INA’s anti-discrimination requirements, revise its employment policies and processes and be subject to monitoring by the department.
Comments